Droid-buddies Verizon and Google offer net neutrality truce

When it comes to net neutrality, can we get along? Google and Verizon, …

Amidst all the rancor that we've seen during the last few weeks over the Federal Communications Commission's proposed net neutrality rules comes a joint filing by Verizon and Google that asks a refreshing question. What do the antagonists have in common regarding this vexing problem?

"Because our businesses rely on each other, it is appropriate for us to jointly discuss a number of things," wrote Alan Davidson of Google and Thomas Tauke of Verizon on Thursday, such as "how we ensure that consumers get the information, products and services they want online; encourage investment in advanced networks; and ensure the openness of the web around the world." And so they've come up with a set of broad principles and the outline of a voluntary industry-wide system for handling network management disputes, with government intervention included only in the most dire cases—a set of "overarching values that create a framework to guide players throughout the Internet space."

It makes sense that Google and Verizon would try this out. As Ars readers know, they don't just "rely on each other," they're business partners now, not just in offering the Droid smartphone on Verizon's network, but in Google's online phone store, as well. "We believe that we need a policy that will ensure openness and preserve the essential character of the Internet as a global, interconnected network of networks and users that is thriving based on a common set of core values," their statement explains.

Does this mean that The War is over? Hot partisans on any side of the Internet non-discrimination debate need not worry about that. Both companies have also filed individual statements with the FCC that offer very different takes on the issue.

"The Commission should adopt a general nondiscrimination rule," advises Google. "This is a well-settled standard that Congress and the FCC have applied in numerous instances to mitigate threats of anticompetitive conduct due to communications providers’ abilities and incentives to discriminate." Au contrairecounters Verizon: "Rather than trying to solve a non-existent problem or locking in place particular approaches to Internet services or network management, the Commission should focus on continuing the Internet's success."

Yet Google and Verizon clearly want to dig up some common ground with each other on this problem. Here's what they've unearthed so far.

No central authority

Google/Verizon say that the Internet should function as an "open platform." That means, to them, that "when a person accesses cyberspace, he or she should be able to connect with any other person that he or she wants to—and that other person should be able to receive his or her message," they write. The 'Net should operate as a place where no "central authority" can make rules that prescribe the possible, and where entrepreneurs and network providers are able to "innovate without permission."

Consumers, the statement continues, should enjoy control over all parts of their experience of the Internet. "No entity from either the government or the private sector should wrest control from consumers over how they choose to use the Internet, and the government should not implement policies that would limit consumers’ ability to choose for themselves," Verizon and Google explain. And providers should offer maximum transparency to consumers, giving them "clear and meaningful information" regarding the services they buy and receive.

Limit the FCC's powers

While Google and Verizon disagree about the degree of authority the FCC has to oversee network management, they seem to concur about the agency's limited powers in other areas. Although Congress has given the Commission oversight over radio and television broadcasters, these mandates should not be transferred over to the Internet, the companies warn. There is "no sound reason to impose communications laws or regulations on the robust marketplace of Internet content, applications, and services." Consumer protection rules and concerns about competitiveness should be handled by the Federal Trade Commission, they add.

And any regulation of "online intermediaries" should be governed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. "The Commission is not an arbiter of US intellectual property laws," Google/Verizon plainly declare. Copyright is a "delicate balance." The FCC should avoid experiments in the field, especially those that "would prohibit the development of future voluntary cooperative efforts to deter copyright infringement."

Let us police ourselves first

As already noted, Google and Verizon have very different takes on the question of the FCC's oversight over network management, but they do agree that "differential treatment of Internet traffic" by network operators could be "either beneficial or harmful to users." This is probably about as close as a big ISP will get to conceding the potential harmfulness of network discrimination.

"While we do not necessarily agree on which side of the line various practices may fall," Google/Verizon continue, "we do agree that such practices should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." And while they disagree about whether non-discrimination rules should apply to wireless, they both note that the FCC's Internet Policy Statement emerged from the deregulation of wireline operators. And so: "Any principles applicable to wireless broadband networks should account for the pertinent technical and market circumstances, by acknowledging the flexibility needed for network operators to manage their wireless networks in a reasonable manner."

Still, in general, the Policy Statement offers "useful" language, the Google/Verizon statement concedes, especially the principle that consumers should have "the final say on their web experience." Disputes over problems in this area, however, should first be handled by "self-governing forums." The Internet community "is highly motivated and well positioned to police itself, especially if all players are committed to transparency and inclusiveness," Google and Verizon write.

And so the filers urge the creation of Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) in three areas: the development of Best Practices for network management, the creation of forums for dispute resolution, and the issuing advisory opinions as needed. The dispute resolution TAG should provide antagonists with a chance to be heard and work the problem out. Unless they can reach a settlement on their own, "the TAG should issue an advisory opinion concerning the particular practices at issue at the conclusion of the dispute resolution process."

But Google and Verizon acknowledge that there needs to be a "backstop role" for the government to step in "if or when bad actors emerge anywhere in the Internet space, and we do agree that involvement should occur only where necessary on a case-by-case base basis." In those instances, intervention should be "surgical, swift and based on a finding of specific facts that establish such harm."

So there you have it—the closest thing, net neutrality-wise, to French and German troops sharing cigarettes, coffee, and schnapps on the Western Front on Christmas eve in 1914. We've got Google acknowledging the importance of a voluntary framework for dealing with Internet discrimination problems, and Verizon cautiously admitting the need for government oversight if all else fails. We've also got a clearly stated set of philosophical promises that we can hold both of these companies to, when, as sure as a byte equals eight bits, they break them.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.